The question absolutely was how they saw it, because how they saw it is what they were doing. The fact that they couldn't induce the women to churn out children as fast as their chickens turned out eggs doesn't change that.
The US constitution protected slavery too. Hello fugitive slave clause?
I know that. To put it another way, I don't see how that fugitive clause and slavery in general weren't unconstitutional.
Glad we finally cleared that up.
There was nothing to clear up unless it took you this long to understand that not everyone in the North was among the good guys, which I have pointed out to you numerious times on this thread. About the only thing I've posted to you more often is "repeat snipped".
The Corwin Amendment was rejected by the Southern States. That's why the drive to get more states to ratify it suddenly halted.
Five Union states ratified it, so the idea that the rest didn't have enough time to ratify it before the South rejected it is just plain wrong.
The US did not abolish slavery during the war which you claimed as some kind of indictment of the Confederate government. Well the same applied to the US Government. Make all the excuses you want.
I haven't made any excuses. The Democrats, the party of JD, blocked passage of the 13 Amendment in 1864. The voters responded by replacing them with Republicans, who voted to pass the 13th Amendment and send it to the states for ratification. Those are the facts, so no excuses are needed.
The Corwin Amendment offered slavery no protections it didn't already have and was rejected by most Republicans and the Northern states.
FIFY.
You clearly don't get that the first was a party plank to ban slavery in the western territories.
The Republicans showed what they meant by "all our National Territory" (not territories) when they voted to abolish slavery in all states. Likewise, the party of JD, the Democrats, showed what they meant by states' rights in 1864 when they voted against the 13th Amendment.
Repeat snipped.
I've posted plenty of quotes to show they wanted these territories for themselves - and they wanted to weaken opposition to ever higher tariffs. Duh. They were not abolitionists.
Nine years after they published their platform, they had the votes they needed to abolish slavery, and they did it in all states.
BTW, no it was not. It was orchestrated by Lincoln. Read that nauseating hagiography by admitted plagiarist Doris Kearns-Godwin. "Team of rivals". She can't stop gushing about how "brilliant" it was to orchestrate the Corwin Amendment.
No.
They had no right to dictate to the citizens of any state whom they can choose to elect.
Apparently they did, but thanks for your opinion.
Ask me if I think it the place of representatives of some states to dictate to citizens of other states whom they can elect.
Ask me if I'm impressed that you think people who split the nation and defended the right to own slaves should be elected to the federal government.
But then again, we're guilty of using slave labor today as a result of our free trade deals with the communists. The only difference is that instead of importing the slave labor, we've exported the plantations.
The large majority of Confederate leaders did not say secession was "about" slavery.
Yes, yes, and true communism has never been tried.
You said they had a breeding program. They did not.
I know that. To put it another way, I don't see how that fugitive clause and slavery in general weren't unconstitutional.
You said the primary difference between the Confederate Constitution and the US Constitution was the protection of slavery. That was false. They did not materially differ on protections of slavery.
There was nothing to clear up unless it took you this long to understand that not everyone in the North was among the good guys, which I have pointed out to you numerious times on this thread. About the only thing I've posted to you more often is "repeat snipped".
Its not only that not everyone in the North was among the abolitionists, its that almost nobody was.
Five Union states ratified it, so the idea that the rest didn't have enough time to ratify it before the South rejected it is just plain wrong.
No its not. It takes time to ratify a constitutional amendment. Look how long some states have taken before ratifying various constitutional amendments.
I haven't made any excuses. The Democrats, the party of JD, blocked passage of the 13 Amendment in 1864. The voters responded by replacing them with Republicans, who voted to pass the 13th Amendment and send it to the states for ratification. Those are the facts, so no excuses are needed.,/P>
Actually this is false. It did not pass until the Southern states came back in and ratified it after the end of the war.
The Corwin Amendment explicitly protected slavery effectively forever. FIFY
FIFY.
The Republicans showed what they meant by "all our National Territory" (not territories) when they voted to abolish slavery in all states. Likewise, the party of JD, the Democrats, showed what they meant by states' rights in 1864 when they voted against the 13th Amendment.,/P>
LOL! No they didn't. You are trying to conflate two completely different things. The Republicans were not abolitionists prior to the war and explicitly said so over and over and over again.
Nine years after they published their platform, they had the votes they needed to abolish slavery, and they did it in all states.
Nobody disputes that. Their view changed in the latter stages of the war.
No.,/p>
I can understand why you don't want to read direct evidence that refutes the dogma you've been taught.
Apparently they did, but thanks for your opinion.
They didn't. What they had were more men and more guns. They did not have a legal or constitutional right to do so. Might does not make right.
Ask me if I'm impressed that you think people who split the nation and defended the right to own slaves should be elected to the federal government.
Ask me if I believe the lies about them defending an institution that simply was not threatened in the US when they chose to leave. Also ask me if the sovereign states ever agreed to delegate the right to prevent secession to the federal government they created.
But then again, we're guilty of using slave labor today as a result of our free trade deals with the communists. The only difference is that instead of importing the slave labor, we've exported the plantations.
With Nike, Apple, etc etc serving as the modern slave masters. After all, they enable this by lobbying with all their might to prevent Congress from imposing sanctions on China for their slavery and genocide.
Yes, yes, and true communism has never been tried.
Non sequitor alert